The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-04-23
The Evening Service
FRIDAY, APRIL Is.


The morning session was opened at
$50 by devotional exercises conducted
by Rev. Mr.. Glib. Prof. Standish fol-
lowed with critical review of Thurs
days proceedings. Rev. Jacob Merri-
field next presented his paper on
Theology as a Science"
We touch only few of the points.
He remarked that every age had what
it deemed sanctities that must not be
questioned. Each people has had its
own rule as to the Godhead, sometimes
based upon selfish reasons. In all the
past traditions and fables have furnish
ed abundant material for accepted
theology. But really no system of the.
ology yet devised is at all perfect.
The greatest of all these defects is
the assumption that no truth can be
known, except by supernatural means.
But nature is the universal expression
or revelations of the divine will and
method Gods only method. Systems of
doctrines contrary to nature, have been
assumed, as pretending to come from
supernatural sources, and so establish
ing monstrous errors. This whole sys-
tenn was little else than a craft of sell
fish priests and authorities.
There is no realm but is legitimate
to science; it investigates the facts of
universal phenomenon. There can be
nothing that is unknowable; it may be
as yet unknown, but nothing is I'M
movable. The reputed Christian the
ology of the world is not science but
is only a scheme. A restatement can
not save it. 1t must be recast of new
material, upon new basis. We must
have science that declares the natur-
al operation by which the divine Faith
er declares himself to man. If Gods
revelation to us is real, it can be proved
and will show a method by which
this communication can be carried on.
In this, facts must be elected; inspira-
ton must be scientifically studied. The
reason and the method of God must be
logically studied. Theindications now
are that mind is cause and never effect;
and this conviction will increase upon
us. That all things are of God-that
is, of minds legitimate and true.
The ''New Theology" so called, made
by men yet afraid of their shadows
may serve to bridge the way to the
real that is to come. God is the one
supreme fact from which all things pro-
coed. God is naturally incarnated in
all mankind-not in one only-but in
all. The historical Christ best brings
out this fact.
Vigorous Discussion
followed along the lines of Mr.. Merri-
fields paper, and with little reference
to the other papers which by vote were
to be discussed at this session. There
were half dozen speakers. The dis
cussion was opened by DR.. Crane. In
regard to progress in theology, he re-
marked, that the adoption ofthe motto:
"Be sure you are right, then go ahead"
would be advisable. Don't go off
on a tangent He warned the Insti-
tute against pantheistic tendencies of
thought, and insisted on both the i'm
manance and transcendence of Deity.
You cannot reach the Infinite by null
tiplying the finite. God transcends all
of us; we must unite these ideas. Nat
ure never can be infinite. God is more
than nature;-it is born, it is created.
God is more than the method, and here
comes the transcendent, the supernat-
ural.
H. L. Garfield said Nobody in this
house doubts or denies the doctrine of
Gods immanence. But how are we
related to God ? Do we transcend him,
or he us9 Let us understand just how
we are related" Another point was
made "This material world would be
dead without the active influence upon
it of another and higher world" 1t is
so in moral and spiritual realms also.
God is above us. G. E. Nash dissented
from some of the statements of the
mornings paper. 1t was too emphatic
even dOgmatic in its statements, and
characterized by sweeping assertions.
Is there nothing in the world but sci,
ence? Mr.. Clayton, Prof. Standish
and DR.. Cone, also spoke, the former
endorsing the positions of the essayist,
and quoting Herbert Spencer. Prof.
Standish dissented from Mr.. Clayton's |
view. DR.. Cone questioned the essay
list in regard to his views of matter and |
spirit. By vote the Institute allowed !
the speakers of the previous day five |
minutes for the further presentation of !
their views, but defeated a proposition
to continue the discussion as against !
the program. DR.. Rexford declined to ]